What do the ghouls in Necropolis eat?
What do the settlers in Junktown eat?
What do the gun runners eat?
What do the BoS eat?
What do the ghouls in Necropolis eat? What do the settlers in Junktown eat? What do the gun runners eat?
What do the ghouls in Necropolis eat?
What do the settlers in Junktown eat?
What do the gun runners eat?
What do the BoS eat?
>rats
>rats
>fungus and rats
>fungus and rats
>What do the ghouls in Necropolis eat?
nothing dumbass ghouls don't need food or water lmao
If they don't need water then why do you kill then by stealing their water chip?
they use the water to wash their clothes and the lack of clean undies leads to a breakdown in their society
bussy
are these threads legitimate questions or are they thinly veiled threads for something else?
It's meant to be a semi-satirical "no u" to people who criticized the world of Fallout 3 by asking what the people of Megaton eat. It's since become a meme among Ganker users to criticize RPG games' lack of internal world logic by asking "what do they eat?" in reply to images of towns/cities in games that don't have visible food sources. This thread, however, is probably a shitty attempt at stirring up a shitty NOO VEGAS = TRANNIES FALLOUT 3 = INDIANS flamewar like all Fallout threads inevitably become on this trashcan of a board.
This.
Also this:
Whoops, meant this one:
gimme the tldw
i'm not gonna watch a 11min vid some anon recommends dude. gimme the tldw
If you want, you can just skip to 10:00, that's when he actually starts talking about Fallout. From what I've garnered, he brings up the Megaton "what do they eat?" question as an example of fundamentally different design philosophies in the world of Fallout 3 compared to the world of New Vegas. Basically, Fallout 3's world is unrealistic and that every settlement has no answer to the question "What do they eat?", and that in his opinion, he believes it's a symptom of the degradation of the worldbuilding of a setting and that if an author does not answer a question like this then they are fundamentally bad at creating fictional worlds because they don't care about the details of their setting, which he claims is the basis of the story itself.
thanks. then yeah i remember thinking about shit like that as well when i was playing fo3 as a 14 year old lmao
right right, that makes sense. thanks dude
>What do the ghouls in Necropolis eat?
>What do the settlers in Junktown eat?
>What do the settlers in Junktown eat?
They trade with other settlements like the nearby Shady Sands who grows their own crops.
what do they offer in trade?
Gambling and prostitution. originally, if you killed Gizmo and let Gillian take over the town, Junktown starved. They changed that because playtesters got mad
It's a fair thing to be annoyed at. There's no indication in game that removing a fat evil mobster kingpin from the town would lead to a famine. It's nothing more than a "Frick you" to the player.
haven't played in a while but doesn't the guy who asks you to do it say he'll take over Junktown in his place?
Yeah, but the expectation is that the morally upright "frontier sherrif" guy will ostensibly be a better leader for a town than the debased casino owner and pimp. Moral subversion is fine, when done well, but this is a clear case of devs going "nah, frick you, this is a le wacky morally grey world, homie." A more refined example would be the Primm endings in New Vegas. There are a few ways to sort out the issue of the sherrif in Primm, and each one has it's own upsides and downsides, and some choices are even affected by your choice for the final battle, too.
a youtuber i watch calls classic fallouts moral compasses as "good moral guy" and "evil contrarian" lmao
Fo1 has a better example already in the Regulators vs Blades quest, ironically.
>Given the quest by Zimmerman to wipe out the Blades because they're presented as a gang of hoodlums
>go and meet thr Blades and find out the Regulators are the actually monsters, can find out they're the ones who killed Zimmerman's son
>have the option to take out the Regulators
The Gizmo/Killian quest line doesn't even have that much nuance to actually pull off the writing twist without it being a middle finger to the player.
It only works as a twist if you leave hints in the game that Killian will do poorly. He runs a fricking general store and everybody in the town likes him. It just doesn't make sense - it's a "get fricked for making the rational choice" move.
Killian is already the mayor/sheriff.
The cut ending was going to have Killian grind Junktown down under a fascist law.
It was moronic ending and it's a good thing that it was cut, because it was just dipshit subversion writing that the player wouldn't expect, exacerbated by the fact that
>most players would interact with Killian first and there'd be no reason to think Gizmo would actually be the correct choice
>helping Killian requires you obtain evidence that Gizmo was trying to kill him, which is the exact fricking opposite of being an unreasonable control freak cop
Yeah, the idea was good, but the execution was bad.
>They changed that because playtesters got mad
yeah, the devs originally had a lot more "gray area morally" ideas they wanted to implement but didn't for whatever reasons. i don't even know where i got this info from
>What do the settlers in Junktown eat?
jerky
umm they eat obsolete cultural references and hecking black humor